Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. Nicola Searle is currently on sabbatical. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy

Friday, 31 March 2017

Whether you have been following the Fujifilm v AbbVie case every step of the way or you are coming to it afresh, do not fear! Next week's Rapid Response event organized by AIPPI UK will be everything you need to understand how this decision will effect you, your clients and future litigation strategies. Here come the details:

What: Mr Justice Henry Carr’s judgment of 3 March 2017 was the first time that relief has been ordered by the English Courts in the form of an Arrow declaration. In this special event, a panel of distinguished speakers will review the decision from the perspective of patent law, competition law and patent prosecution strategy to assess whether the circumstances of the case were sufficiently unusual to make this a one-off decision or whether this marks the beginning of a new trend in biosimilars patent litigation where patent thickets are dense and the need for commercial certainty high. AbbVie was alleged to be avoiding adjudication on the validity of its patents. Was the declaration justified or was AbbVie merely operating within the rules?

The AmeriKat encourages speedy registration as this is promising to be a blockbuster event, including some helpful suggestions on how best to benefit from this revamped litigation tool. For those who can't attend, there will be an IPKat report on the evening's proceedings soon after. In the meantime, you can get yourself up to date with these handy Kat summary here and here.

This afternoon the UK's IPO confirmed that this week's Article 50 trigger will not impact the UK's present UPC ratification plans. The news from the UK IPO is as follows:

"There has been some speculation this week about the UK’s timetable for ratification of the Agreement. As reported in Managing IP on 30 March, we are fully on track to commence the provisional application period and ratify the UP Agreement according to the Preparatory Committee’s timetable (i.e. provisional application in May and court operational in December 2017). We expect the legislation on privileges and immunities to be ready to lay after Easter."

Of course, many will not be wishing to count their ratification chickens before they are hatched.

The update from the UK IPO also confirmed that the UPC Preparatory Committee's HR team is ready to proceed with the judicial recruitment process following the commencement of the provisional application period. This update came during Wednesday's Preparatory Committee's Interim Team meeting held at the UPC Court of Appeal building in Luxembourg. The Interim Team consists of 5 sub-groups in charge of finalizing practical arrangements for the UPC.

A cool wind seems to be blowing from the Patents Court, especially if you are an SPC owner for a combination product. In the past three months, Mr Justice Arnold has decided three SPC cases - Teva v Gilead[2017] EWHC 13, Abraxis v Comptroller General of Patents[2017] EWHC 14 and, last week, Teva v MSD[2017] EWHC 539. The first two cases were subject to references to the CJEU (see previous IPKat post here), with the latest decision keeping to the UK's shores...at least for now. The headline point seems to be that SPC owners will have a tough time trying to maintain their combination product SPCs. So how does the decision in Teva v MSD fit into this? The AmeriKat summarizes the decision below. What was the SPC?

MSD's SPC/GB08/022 ("the SPC") - a combo SPC covering the anti-retroviral medication used in the treatment of HIV sold as Atripla by BMS and Gilead. Atripla is a fixed-dose combination of three active ingredients which are inhibitors of a viral enzyme known to reverse transcriptase - efavirenz ("EFV"), tenofovir in the form of disoproxil fumarate ("TDF") and emtricitabine ("FTC").

The marketing authorization ("MA") for Atripla was granted on 13 December 2007. An MA for EFV was granted in 20 November 1998. This MA was used as the basis to obtain an earlier SPC - SPC/GB00/35 - for EFV, alone ("the EFV mono SPC") which expired on 19 November 2013. The MAs for TDF and FTC were granted on 5 February 2002 and 24 October 2003, respectively. What was the problem?

Teva argued that the SPC was invalid under Article 3(a) and 3(c) of the SPC Regulation. Article 3(c) demands that the product subject to the SPC be protected by a basic patent in force at the date of the SPC application. Article 3(c) requires that the product not already be subject to an SPC. Teva argued that the SPC was invalid under:

Article 3(a) as the product was not protected by the basic patent - EP(UK) 0 582 455. Interestingly, MSD amended its patent to include a new claim 17 upon which it relied to protect the product for the purposes of obtaining the SPC, but didn't rely upon it at trial (c.f with the position in Actavis v Boehringer [2013] EWHC 2927 at [10]). Only claim 16 was relied upon at trial. Claim 16 is in the following terms:

"A combination of the compound of claim 12 or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof with a nucleoside analog having biological activity against HIV reverse transcriptase."

Article 3(c) as MSD already obtained an SPC for EFV based on the basic patent. Because it was agreed that the basic patent disclosed and claimed EFV specifically and as part of a class of compounds, Teva argued that the Atripla product had already been subject to an SPC (the EFV mono SPC) which compensated MSD for the delay in exploiting the invention.

What is the legal test?

On Article 3(c), after an exhaustive review of the case law under Article 3(c), including referring to the Explanatory Memorandum (COM (90) 101 final), the judge concluded that:

Article 3(c) precludes the grant of SPCs for a combination of active ingredients where one of those active ingredients embodies the "core inventive advance" (at [30] of Actavis v Sanofi) or "sole subject-matter of the invention" (at [39] ofActavis v Boehringer) of the basic patent and that active ingredient has already been the subject of an SPC based on that patent. This is irrespective of whether the patent contains one of more claims which protect the combination itself.

But an SPC can be granted if the combination is a distinct invention - it will not matter whether its protected by the same patent or by a different patent. In those circumstances, one of those active ingredients could not be said to be the "sole subject-matter of the invention".

To determine whether the combination is a "distinct invention", the correct question to be considered is not a "conventional patent law" question. The question is instead:

"whether, given the invention of efavirenz [which was accepted by the parties], claim 16 represents a distinct invention such that it could in principle form the subject-matter of a separate patent."

What was the answer?

The judge first decided under the Article 3(a) objection. With the aid of expert evidence, Mr Justice Arnold held that the construction of Claim 16 would include tenofovir (MSD successfully argued that it could be described as a nucleoside analog). However, he held that the "a" in front of " a nucleoside analog" meant that Claim 16 was limited to a duel combination product, but not a combination of all three of EFV, TDF and FTC. For that reason, since the "minimum requirement" is that all three must fall within a claim of a basic patent, the SPC was held to be invalid under Article 3(a). It was on the basis of this construction which meant that the SPC did not meet this "minimum requirement" that the question of a reference to the CJEU did not arise, as it had in Teva v Gilead.

The judge then turned to Article 3(c). In answering the question posed above, he considered that Claim 16 was not independently valid over the claims which protect efavirenz and

"does not represent a distinct invention. There is nothing in the Patent to suggest that claim 16 represents a distinct invention. Given the need for a simple and transparent system for the grant of SPCs, it seems to me that that should ordinarily be the end of the matter and that it should not be necessary to adduce expert evidence on this question."

He went on to acknowledge that if (note the word "if") it was appropriate to have regard to expert evidence:

"I consider that the evidence establishes that, given efavirenz, it would have been obvious to combine it with a NRTI in vitro because that would have been an obvious thing to try and the skilled person would have had a fair expectation of success. This is for the following combination of reasons."

This conclusion pulled support from an earlier finding made by the judge at paragraphs 136-140 where he concluded that it was CGK that combinations of NRTIs and NNRTIs were at least worth considering. This was because emerging research showed that NNRTIs were unlikely to be efficacious alone and given the different mode of action to NRTIs, there were potential advantages in combining the two. The judge held that the skilled person would have considered that there was a reasonable likelihood that a combination of a NRTI and a NNRTI would be either synergistic or additive, in vitro. Further, there was a "reasonable possibility" that the effect would be synergistic, although tests would have to prove this. The SPC was therefore invalid under Article 3(c).

Conclusion

So a combination SPC bites the dust. The AmeriKat is struck by the detail in which the parties went into expert evidence on construction for the purposes of Article 3(a) which was then employed to establish CGK for the purposes of a somewhat fall-back assessment of "distinct invention" under Article 3(c). This assessment was essentially that the combination was obvious over the CGK alone (which in normal patent proceedings is a pretty risky move). On one view, the "distinct invention" test is just an SPC-neutral way of disguising a conventional patent law inventive step test into SPC law. Arnold J's comments about the appropriateness of the use of expert evidence seems to suggest a tacit recognition of this nervousness to adopt conventional patent law tests and practice in the SPC space (or maybe it does no such thing!). Further, given that the correctness and scope of the use of expert evidence in assessing validity under Article 3(c) has not been clarified, will this lead to mini-patent trials inside of SPC proceedings?

If patent law assessments start creeping into SPC assessments of "distinct invention" then this must call into question whether the SPC Regulation (and the CJEU's interpretations of Article 3(c)) is doing justice to the teleological interpretation of the SPC Regulation. Further, how will patent offices be expected to assess the CGK for the purposes of determining Article 3(c) objections - this is not the straightforward, administrative assessment that the SPC regime was meant to embody. But here, we have the CJEU to thank for their Article 3(c) jurisprudence. "Perhaps post-Brexit UK laws will be a bit kinder to combo SPCs" muses Merpel. Well, on that happy note...

One of the more challenging exercises in legal thinking is to imagine an alternative framework for fashioning the law. IP is no exception. In an IP world where international agreements homogenize the way that we view intangible assets, it is refreshing sometimes to ponder how things might be conceived differently. Against that backdrop, IPKat published on January 25, 2017, a review of Professor Neil Netanel’s book, “From Maimonides to Microsoft: the Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print.”

The review described Jewish law “as a unique, ancient and perpetually evolving body of rules, maxims and principles.” The review went on to say that—

“…in every legal system, a balance must be struck between achieving justice in the individual case and providing a general level of predictability and stability. Jewish law veers closer to the former than the latter, while secular legal systems lean in the other direction.”

The timing of this review of Professor Netanel’s book, and the questions that it raises about the modern application of Jewish law, reaching back to Talmudic law of ancient times, could not have been better. The New York Times reported on March 29th (“In Brooklyn’s Kosher Pizza War, Modern Tastes Battle Ancient Law”) on a fascinating decision given by the Jewish Rabbinical Court (known as a “beit din”) of the Borough Park neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York.

At issue was a dispute between two restaurants, both offering a fare of kosher food. The plaintiff, Mr. Daniel Branover, is an owner of an up-scale kosher restaurant, known as Basil Pizza & Wine Bar, located in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn and in operation since 2010. The specialty pizza pies are a mainstay of its menu. The defendant, Mr. Shemi Harel, last month opened a pizza shop called Calabria, located directly across the street from the Basil restaurant. As described in the article—

“With its graffiti-style décor and casual, pay-at-the-counter dining, Calabria is very different from sleek, modern Basil, where weekend diners often wait two hours for a table … [and] whose customers pay as much as $24 for individual pies.”

Branover took issue with Harel’s conduct and sued, reportedly on the ground of what is called in Hebrew “hasagat gevul”. The term can be translated as “trespassing” or “unfair competition.”, depending upon the circumstances. It was claimed that Calabria sought to elicit information from employees of Basil about Basil’s most popular pizzas and the technique for making them. Not only that, but Calabria would approach Basil customers as they waited outside for Basil for a table to come open. And so, the question—legitimate competition or a violation of “hasagat gevul”, as it has been interpreted and applied by rabbinical authorities in a variety of settings over nearly two millennia?

The Rabbinical Court, in its decision given in Hebrew, sided with Branover, focusing on the proximity of the two restaurants, Branover’s investment, the reputation that the restaurant had earned, and the “similarities in the appearance and concept” of the respective pizza offerings. What is important for a claim based on “hasagat gevul” in such circumstances is the effect that these factors would have on Branover’s livelihood. In principle, perhaps, the court could have concentrated on the proximity between the two restaurants and simply ordered Calabria to move to another location. But it seems that the ability of Harel to make a living was also taken into consideration.

Accordingly, Calabria was ordered to change its pizza offerings to “regular pizzas”, further described by the court as “New York-style pizza”, without providing further guidance on what it intended. Calabria now claims to sell “New York-style pizza”, but in the form of rectangular slices. That seems unacceptable to Branover, who insists that a slice of New York-style pizza should be in the form of wedged slices cut from a round pizza pie. The article reports that Branover is contemplating the filing of a civil law suit. How a civil suit will play out is not entirely clear to this Kat, who has always understood that a rabbinical court proceeding is a type of arbitration. As in any arbitration, the answer may lie in the terms of the arbitration agreement.

More generally, this Kat wonders whether Branover would have prevailed under any other legal system and if so, under what set of legal principles. Circling back to the review of the Netanel book, Jewish law tilts to “achieving justice in the individual case” as compared to “providing a general level of predictability and stability.” The claim of “hasagat gevul” would seem well-suited to give expression to this approach to legal decision-making.

A thanks to Katfriend Axel Nordemann for bringing this matter to the IPKat’s attention.

Thursday, 30 March 2017

Over the last few weeks, this moggy has been scampering between several conferences and events about Brexit and Intellectual Property, and the progress of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. At other events, these topics have loomed over the proceedings.

Back in the days before it was announced that Tim Moss would be the new Chief Executive of the UK IPO and he was happily in charge of Companies House, CIPA held a seminar on "The UPC: Where we are and why". Laura Starrs, head of the IPO's hastily re-convened UPC Task Force, set out what the UK needs to do before being able to formally ratify the UPC Agreement. All of the legislation to implement the provisions of the UPC Agreement itself into UK law were complete long ago in the heady era before the fateful referendum of 23 June 2016. The legislative basis was provided in the IP Act 2014, and the detailed provisions are enshrined in the snappily-named The Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) Order 2016 (analysed in painful detail by this Kat here), which was made on 12 March 2016.

It starts with the Isle of Man
It however remained to extend this legislation to the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, but the Patents Act extends there, and apparently the Isle of Man wished to be included in the new system. Laura Starrs was back in action at the MIP International Patent Forum on 8 and 9 March to inform this moggy that The Patents (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Order 2017 was made in Privy Council on 15th February (under the provisions of section 132(2) of the Patents Act 1977) and laid as a negative resolution of Parliament on 22 February (as required by section 124(2) of the Patents Act 1977), during which period either House of Parliament could in principle object (apparently by means of a "prayer"). Astute observers of the minutiae of UK constitutional matters will know that the Order must sit for 40 days, but it seems unlikely that anyone will object to this territorial extension.

But there is more to be done by the UK
More significant is the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities. This is required for the UPC to sit in London as an international organisation, and the Protocol was signed on 14 December 2016 in Brussels, shortly after Baroness Neville-Rolfe (the then IP Minister - the position is now occupied by Jo Johnson) announced at Competitiveness Council meeting that UK would proceed to ratify UPCA. It was laid before Parliament on 20 January 2017. 21 sitting days (days when both Houses are sitting) are required before a treaty can be ratified, but this period has now passed. The (then) only UKIP MP Douglas Carswell did put forward a motion that the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities not be ratified, but this attracted no support.

However, before the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities can be ratified, secondary legislation is needed in both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments to give effect to the Protocol under both English and Scottish law. This is apparently in draft and should be appearing soon.

The UPC Task Force is expecting ratification of the UPC Agreement in "Spring". Rumours that it might be before the Article 50 notification was sent have turned out to be over-optimistic.

But what about Germany?
Germany has of course still not ratified either, and parliamentary consent to ratification is apparently hoped for in May 2017 (which would allow the provisional application of the UPC to begin, provided enough countries have signed the Protocol allowing provisional application of the Agreement by then, and so enable judges to be appointed and other preparations to be completed). Germany has long been of the view that it should be the last to ratify the Agreement and so determine the timing of its coming into force (being the first day of the fourth month after the deposit of its instrument of ratification, provided the UK has already ratified by then). The Preparatory Committee hopes that German ratification will occur in September 2017, allowing the sunrise period to begin (when opt-outs from the UPC jurisdiction can be filed), leading to the Court opening in December. Merpel always expects some slippage, so maybe early 2018 is more realistic for the Court opening. That also sets the date for when unitary patents can be obtained - if the grant date is after the UPC Agreement comes into force, then unitary effect can be registered for a European patent.

There was a rumour that Germany might be seeking to delay ratification in order to include the UPC as an aspect of the Brexit negotiations, but Merpel has not been able to establish any serious basis for them.

But will anyone want to use it?
This is the crux of the matter. At an event on Brexit and IP convened by IPAN, there was some doubt about the attractiveness of a new patent and litigation system whose membership was, from the very beginning, in doubt. Those interested in the effect of Brexit on IP should look out for IPAN's forthcoming report: “IP, Brexit and beyond – a blue-print for action in IP”, which will be based on the event. Similar concerns were voiced at the MIP International Patent Forum.

On the one hand, some voices, especially from industry, have criticised the Government for taking the UK into UPC/UP system without the question of continuing membership being resolved. On the other hand it was argued that there was never going to be any guarantee of the situation post-Brexit, and the alternative would have been for the UK to be definitely out of the system, which nobody really wanted as an ultimate outcome. The latter view accepts short term uncertainty for a chance of a better long-term result.

This Kat believes that there must be a very high degree of confidence that if the UK leaves the Unitary Patent system, there will be provided a mechanism by which existing unitary patents can revert to having national effect in the UK as an EP(UK). Such a mechanism is actually easier to provide than to provide continuing protection in the UK after Brexit for EU trade marks and designs (the issues of which are admirably set out by CITMA) and plant variety rights (as this Kat is reminded to mention after the IPAN event). For patents, it would only be necessary to provide that a Unitary Patent revert to the status it had, with respect to the UK, before the unitary effect was requested. But with all the uncertainties inherent in a new system and a new court, is the additional certainty of what happens after Brexit one variable too far? Will potential users simply decline to request unitary effect and opt out their patents? For patentees with a significant presence in the UK, this may well be the case. But readers are invited to give their own opinions.

If the UK is peripheral to the operations of a company, then the question of whether the UK is in or out of the scope of the unitary patent is simply the quantum of possible damage in an infringement action, so there must be at least some patentees who will not care much either way. But will they be enough to get the system off to a reasonable start? There will be likely at least a year of uncertainty between the UPC opening, and the question of the continuing participation of the UK being resolved. If there are no enough users of the system, it may not be financially viable and then again its future would be open to doubt. Here again, readers will doubtless have their views.

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

In
its 2016 decision in GS Media[Katposts here] the
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) sought to clarify under what
conditions the provision of a link to a work protected by copyright made
available on a third-party website (where it is freely accessible) without a
licence from the relevant rightholder falls within the scope of the right of
communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive.

In
its decision the CJEU held that whether linking to unlicensed content falls
within or outside the scope of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive depends –
crucially – on whether the link provider has a profit-making intention or
knowledge of the unlicensed character of the work linked to.

In
this new article that I have written and will be published in Common Market Law Review, I attempt to assess
the implications of the GS Media decision: (1) in respect of
linking, and - more generally - (2) the construction of the right of
communication to the public.

My
main conclusions are that:

1) GS Media imposes a re-consideration of what
amounts to an act of communication to the public

GS Media marks a departure or,
at least, signals a re-thinking of the understanding of the right of
communication in the context of linking to copyright-protected content, as
first provided in Svensson [Katposts here].

Mindful of the importance of links to the overall functioning of
the internet, as well as the need to provide an appropriate balance of
different interests, the CJEU attempted to mitigate the harsh consequences that
a rigorous application of Svensson would have had.

In doing so, the court vested criteria so far only sporadically
considered, eg the profit-making intention of the defendant, with a central
role. It also introduced an element that in most Member States’ is not present
as far as primary liability for copyright infringement is concerned, ie the
knowledge by the defendant of the unlicensed character of the content linked
to.

As far as the construction of the right of communication to the
public in cases other than linking is concerned, similarly to Reha Training[here], GS
Media regards the ‘indispensable intervention’ of the defendant as a
central element: in doing so, the CJEU appeared to construe the notion of indispensability
strictly.

2) Towards a relaxation of the GS Media notion of
'indispensable intervention'?

In their (post-GS Media) Opinions in Filmspeler[here] and Ziggo[here],
AG Campos
Sánchez-Bordona and AG Szpunar, respectively, proposed a broader construction of the notion of
‘indispensability’.

While the impact of Filmspeler might be somewhat
reduced by the highly specific factual context from which this CJEU reference
originated (multimedia players with pre-installed hyperlinks to websites that,
without the authorization of the copyright holder, offer unrestricted access to
copyright-protected works, eg films, series and live programmes), the
implications of Ziggo promise to be more far-reaching.

If the CJEU followed its AGs in both cases (particularly in Ziggo),
then the relevance of GS Media could be scaled down, both as far
as the understanding of Article 3(1) is concerned and the type of defendants
that might be regarded as committing acts of communication to the public.

In this sense, not only users, but also online intermediaries –
read: hosting providers – could be regarded as primarily liable for copyright
infringement in relation to user-uploaded materials that infringe third-party
rights, in line with the construction of Article 13 of the draft DSM Directive
as proposed by the European Commission.

3) The next big question for the right of communication to the
public is not just what amounts to an act of communication to
the public but also determination of who makes it

Ultimately the discussion above suggests that the concept of
‘communication to the public’ has been undergoing an evolution.

The next frontier for Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc
Directive appears to be not just a determination of what amounts
to an act of communication to the public, but also who makes
an act of communication to the public.

The latter in particular is the next question for the CJEU to
tackle, and also poses significant – and not entirely worked out – challenges to EU policy-
and law-making.

Opening the door for new legislation,the EU Trade Secrets Directive may proveto create a busy year for Member States

Dark clouds rolled into London today. Plainly fitting given the news of the Article 50 trigger. So while a generation of stomachs continue to churn in the wake of an unplanned and, for her generation, unwanted exit from the EU, the AmeriKat turned to happier news from her European friends. The IPKat's Danish friends Sture Rygaardand Emil Jurcenoksfrom Plesner report on the exciting new national trade secrets law that will come into effect following the EU Trade Secrets Directive. Sture and Emil report:

"In Denmark, the EU Trade Secrets Directive which came into force on 5 July 2016 (as reported on the IPKat here), will be implemented in an entirely new and independent act on trade secrets.

Although we have yet to see the proposal for the new act (which we cannot wait to get our paws on), the implementation of the directive

will introduce a legal definition of trade secrets (which does not exist in Denmark today);

is expected to improve the right holder's possibilities of being awarded damages in case of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets, as it follows from Article 14 of the Directive that the court when setting damages should also be able to take into ac-count any unfair profits made by the infringer, which is not possible under the current rules (as opposed to damages for IP infringements governed by the IP Enforcement Directive);

is expected to lead to new, clearer rules concerning preservation of confidentiality of trade secrets in the course of legal proceedings. The present rules do not allow for a guarantee of confidentiality of trade secrets submitted in court proceedings and do not allow for limiting the access to trade secrets to a limited number of persons; and

may make it possible to obtain measures for preservation of evidence (search and seizure orders), if the right holder can render it probable that an unlawful acquisition, use and/or disclosure of trade secrets has occurred or will occur, which is today only possible in case of infringement of intellectual property rights (all Kats know that the difficulties connected with obtaining the necessary evidence are, in practice, one of the main reasons right holders often decide not to pursue misappropriation of trade secrets. During a meeting at the Patent and Trademark Office, these GuestKats therefore meowed that the office should consider to either extend the existing rules on preservation of evidence regarding intellectual property rights or adopt a similar set of rules, which the office promised to consider).

The proposal for the new act is supposed to be published just before or after the summer break, and the final act is expected to be adopted with effect as of 9 June 2018, i.e. the date of the deadline for implementation of the directive."

Like in the US, these are exciting times for trade secrets in Europe. The AmeriKat will be back to report on other Member States efforts in implementing the EU Trade Secrets Directive.

Overall, applicants based in the United States maintained their number one ranking for the 39th year running, accounting for roughly a quarter (24.3%) of the 233,000 applications filed under the PCT in 2016 – itself a 7.3 percent year-on-year increase – followed by applicants in Japan (19.4%) and China (18.5%), with the latter driving the overall growth in demand. If this current trend continues, China will overtake the U.S. within two years as the largest user of the PCT System. Germany and the Republic of Korea with 18,315 and 15,560 applications were ranked fourth and fifth, respectively (Annex 1).

In total, Asia accounted for 47.4% of total PCT applications, just short of the combined share of Europe (25.6%) and North America (25.3%).

Among the top 15 origins, China recorded extraordinary growth (+44.7%), while Italy (+9.3%), Israel (+9.1%), India (+8.3%) and the Netherlands (+8%) also saw strong growth rates. In contrast, Canada (-17.3%) – for the second consecutive year – saw a substantial decline in filings, linked to declining applications from RIM/Blackberry and Nortel.

ZTE Corporation (4,123 published PCT applications) and Huawei Technologies (3,692) – occupied the top two spots in the list of top PCT applicants, with ZTE moving up two spots to push Huawei out of the leader position.

IPKat is adapting

Trade mark applications under the Madrid System also showed strong growth (+7.2%), again with China (+68%) as the fastest growing country of origin. L'Oréal, Glaxo Group and BMW are the biggest filers. China (with 22,314 designations), the European Union (21,526) and the U.S. (20,979) were the three most designated members in international Madrid applications.

Filings for design protection under the Hague System increased by no less than 13%. Germany with 3,917 designs was the largest user of the Hague System, followed by Switzerland (2,555). Fonkel Meubelmarketing of the Netherlands (953 designs) overtook Samsung Electronics of the Republic of Korea (862) as the largest user of the Hague System (if you never heard of Fonkel Meubelmarketing - me neither. They do not even have a website. It appears that they do business as Maxfurn). The Republic of Korea’s LG Electronics with 728 designs was in third position, followed by Swatch of Switzerland (383) and Procter & Gamble of the U.S. (348).

Patent statistics are to be taken with a grain of salt. For starters, US companies appear to rely less on the PCT than Asian countries, so PCT statistics may not reflect their patenting activities. But the increase in Asian, specifically Chinese, filings shows from where the wind will be blowing. On the (domestic) Chinese patent boom see IPKat post here.

1. Introducing Robo
Lawyer, was created by a real lawyer - Tomasz Zalewski and is programmed to help with qusetions about publishing hyperlinks
on the Internet. In its own words “I know the EU law and the rulings of the
Court of Justice of the EU, especially the ruling in the famous GS Media case.”
You can ask Robo Lawyer copyright linking questions via Facebook.

2. Each year the EUIPO offers young graduates and
professionals the opportunity to carry out a traineeship at EUIPO. The deadline
for application this year is Friday 31 March. All the information can be found
on the Office’s website here.

3. Solicitors qualified in England and Wales are invited to apply
for three available vacancies on the IP Law Committee of the Law Society of
England and Wales. Current areas of work include the implications of Brexit for IP, including the Unified Patent, and the EU’s digital agenda, particularly copyright aspects. The Committee also looks forward to seeing the Bill on IP threats pass its final stages, an area in which the IPLC has long campaigned for reform. Details on how to apply can be found here.

4. Fancy a weekend in Glasgow mulling over Moral Rights and New
Technologies Creativity and Authorship in a Digital World? This conference takes place this weekend, Friday 31 Mar - Sunday
2 Apr 2017 at the University of Glasgow.

5. IP firm Awapatent has launched a shiny new digital hub: AWA Point where you can find
even more IP stories, comments and blog posts.

6. The Competition Law Association is holding an event
where Thomas Kramler, Nicholas Saunders and Stephen Wisking will speak on: “How
should "geo-blocking" practices be assessed from a competition law
and IP perspective in light of the European Commission's e-commerce sector
inquiry and Paramount Studios commitments decision, and what are the proposals
for reform?” The event takes place at the offices of Watson Farley &
Williams LLP on Thursday 6 April.

7. The Jagiellonian University invites graduate, postgraduate law students and young professionals to the Kraków Intellectual Property Law Summer School 2017. The programme
will take place from 11-16th September 2017.

Monday, 27 March 2017

This Kat is always interested in following up on how national IP offices implement practice recommendations. Against this backdrop, Kat friend, Angélica Domínguez, from Dumont Bergman Bider & Co. in Mexico, has reported on an interesting development on the standardized presentation of priority data.

"On March 2011, the WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation recommended to National and Regional Intellectual Property Offices to standardize the presentation of priority application numbers in order to identify each application received. The recommended standard would make it possible to link patent families in databases and search system and would thus make it easier for users of patent information as well as for Examiners during the examination process.

The recommendation consisted of standardized priority application numbers to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention as follows:

"The country code and number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention is XXNNNNNNN”, or

“The organization code and number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad under the Paris Convention is XXNNNNNNN”, wherein

XX: Two letters country/organization code

NNNNNNN: Serial Number in accordance with the worldwide application and priority format

Until several months ago, the Mexican Patent Office (MPO) had not acted on the WIPO recommendation for patent applications filed under the Paris Convention, with the result that the priority data listed in the national applications were accepted without regard to whether the WIPO recommended standard appeared on each certified copy of priority claimed submitted at the MPO. That meant that no objections or office actions were issued requesting that the priority data should correspond to the WIPO recommended standard.

However, since mid-2016, the MPO has embraced the standard outlined in the WIPO Handbook. As a result, several office actions have been issued requesting amendment of the priority data in accordance with the information disclosed in the priority document.

According to the MPO, the new practice will ensure that priority data contained in patent filings under Paris Convention comply with the WIPO standardization criteria with the resulting benefits as described above. The MPO requires that applications filed in 2016 and thus far in 2017 be amended to follow the WIPO recommended standard and applicants can expect an office action if the priority application number does not follow the standard.

In light of the above, applications filed in Mexico under the Paris Convention should keep these changes by MPO in mind."

According
to Article 87(1) European Patent Convention, any person who has duly filed, in
or for any state party to the Paris Convention or any member of the WTO, an
application for a patent or his successor
in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent
application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a
period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application
(emphasis added). The reference to the "successor in title" in Article 87(1) EPC is generally interpreted as
requiring a transfer of the right of priority before the filing of the
subsequent application (T 205/14, Reason 3.4). In T
577/11 of 22 March 2017, Board of Appeal 3.2.05 confirmed this. Transfer of
the priority date had undoubtedly taken place in this case, but three days after the filing of the subsequent
application. The applicant argued that Article 87(1) EPC did not require that
the transfer of the priority right had to occur prior to the filing of the
subsequent application. The Board, based on the wording of Article 87(1) EPC and
noting that its interpretation was in line with Article 4A(1) Paris Convention
and the legislative history of both the relevant provisions of the Paris
Convention and the EPC, rejected the appellant’s argument. The transfer had to
had taken place by the time the subsequent application was filed. The Board
notes that German case law considers the date the declaration of priority with
the particulars relating to the priority application is filed – which can be done
up to 16 months from the earliest priority date claimed (Rule
52(2)), and therefore up to four months after the filing of the subsequent
application – as the relevant date (German Federal Patent Court, decision of 15
February 2012, 5
Ni 59/10 (EP), Reasons, point I.2, and decision of 28 October 2010, 11
W (pat) 14/09), Reasons, point II.B.2(a)(cc)). In the case at hand, Rule
52(2) was not applicable because the application that led to the patent was a
PCT application. Under Rule
4.10(a) PCT, the declaration was to be made on filing the subsequent application,
which it was. Nonetheless, the Board indicates that even if the present
application had not been a PCT application, it did not consider the German
approach convincing, as the filing of the declaration of priority was a “mere
formality” that did not change the relevant date, which was the filing date of
the application.The
decision does not come as a great surprise. There has long been a consensus
that the transfer of a priority right must occur prior to the subsequent filing.
However, given the careful reasoning and the amount of space the Board dedicates
to the issue, T 577/11 may be considered the leading case on this for the
coming years. The take-away for applicants and their representatives is that
they better get those assignments signed prior to filing the subsequent
application, or else the curtain falls on the priority claim.

Sunday, 26 March 2017

As the policy wheels turn, the UK government is consulting on its industrial strategy. The strategy is the government's plan for developing innovation and encouraging economic growth. The launch is just the start; what follows next is a whole host of consultations and discussions on how the plan will translate into practice.

IP, unsurprisingly, has a role to play. There are multiple direct references to IP in the strategy:

A commitment to commission research on how institutions commercialise their IP, looking licensing and spin outs, and how practices vary between different institutions (institution here generally meaning universities)

A commitment to reviewing how the IP system maximises incentives for collaboration and licensing

New IPOrepresentatives in the the Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine

The role of IP in innovative public procurement

The independent review in to the UK creative industries which will include the role of IPR

The strategy has popped up in multiple IP and research discussions in recent weeks. A key theme has been that there remain key challenges in understanding how IP works in practice, such as commercialisation and licensing. The role of IP in university spin-outs is a long-standing problem; a problem that is perhaps dwarfed by the challenges of making such start-ups/spin-outs survive. There are also multiple criticisms that the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, which will launch with £270M to fund research on AI, robotics, nuclear energy, manufacturing and others, is noticeably lacking a human side.

Non-UK readers may curious as to the "Northern Powerhouse" and "Midlands Engine." Every good economic spin needs a catchy name (seeAsian Tigers, Celtic Tiger). [Merpel is very upset the UK monikers are no longer of the feline persuasion. She suggests instead the Northern Panther and Midlands Manx.] Northern Powerhouse refers to the economies of the North England cities of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle; Midlands Engine is the economy of the area between the South of England and the North. The focus on these areas is likely in recognition of the need to decentralise the UK economy away from London, although Scotland, North Ireland and Wales do not seem to have received the same treatment.

It is hard to view the strategy without considering the political context. The uncertainty surrounding Brexit, and its impact on labour and skills, in addition to pending questions on international trade agreements, mean that domestic innovation and industry are more important than ever. Government investments and tax credits form part of industrial strategy and may be key in keeping and attracting multinational corporations. It is too early to tell if the industrial strategy is anticipating direct Brexit implications on IP.

The call for responses to the consultation on the industrial strategy closes April 17th.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!